Stipetić J, Celebić A, Baucić I, Lazić B, Komar D, Bratolić V, Catić A, Stefancić S
Department of Prosthodontic, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Coll Antropol. 2001 Jun;25(1):311-6.
The aim of the study was to determine the number and the type of the occlusal contacts (strong, weak) with respect to the type of the prosthodontic appliance (fixed, removable, combined fixed-removable) and with respect to the Eichner classification in patients with their appliances being in a good function for a long time. The aim of the study was also to determine the number and the type of the occlusal contacts (strong, weak) with respect to the type of occlusion (canine guided, group function or balanced) and the presence of the RCP-ICP slide. A total of 440 patients with different types of prosthodontic appliances were examined for the antagonistic occlusal contacts using occlusal strips of 11 microm and 50 microm. The average number of occlusal contacts was 10.5 for the upper and 10.46 for the lower posterior teeth, approximately 5 on each side of the tooth arch. The results of the study suggest that the biggest number of occlusal contacts were recorded for the small span fixed appliances (2 on average), the greater span fixed and fixed-removable prosthodontic appliances exhibited 1.6 occlusal contacts, and the removable complete denture exhibited 1.2 contact per the tooth in the posterior region. The number of the hard occlusal contacts was significantly greater in fixed and fixed-removable prosthodontic appliances in comparison with the complete dentures (p < 0.05), while there was no significant difference between the prosthodontic appliances for the weak occlusal contacts (p > 0.05). The overall number of the occlusal contacts, as well as the number of the hard occlusal contacts was significantly greater in the Eichner class I cases (p < 0.05) in comparison with the Eichner classes II and III. The number of the weak occlusal contacts showed no significant differences with respect to the Eichner classification (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the number of occlusal contacts between the appliances with RCP-ICP slide and where ICP and RCP corresponded (p > 0.05).
本研究的目的是,针对长期功能良好的患者所使用的不同类型的口腔修复器械(固定义齿、可摘义齿、固定-可摘联合义齿)以及艾希纳分类,确定咬合接触的数量和类型(强、弱)。本研究的目的还包括,针对咬合类型(尖牙引导、组牙功能或平衡)以及正中关系位-正中牙合位滑动的存在情况,确定咬合接触的数量和类型(强、弱)。使用11微米和50微米的咬合纸,对440名佩戴不同类型口腔修复器械的患者的对颌咬合接触情况进行了检查。上颌和下颌后牙的平均咬合接触数量分别为10.5和10.46,牙弓每侧约为5个。研究结果表明,小跨度固定义齿记录到的咬合接触数量最多(平均为2个),较大跨度固定义齿和固定-可摘联合义齿的咬合接触为1.6个,而后牙区可摘全口义齿每个牙齿的接触为1.2个。与全口义齿相比,固定义齿和固定-可摘联合义齿的硬咬合接触数量显著更多(p < 0.05),而对于弱咬合接触,不同口腔修复器械之间没有显著差异(p > 0.05)。与艾希纳II类和III类相比,艾希纳I类病例的咬合接触总数以及硬咬合接触数量显著更多(p < 0.05)。关于艾希纳分类,弱咬合接触的数量没有显著差异(p > 0.05)。正中关系位-正中牙合位滑动的器械与正中牙合位和正中关系位对应的器械之间,咬合接触数量没有显著差异(p > 0.05)。